Perhaps its time to move past the number score system. People seem to just look at that number and completely forget that an article has been written from the perspective of the person who chose that number. His review reads as a 7/10, which is his opinion. With the number system gone you'd have a bit more actual discussion even though you'll still have the folks who only come to the comments section to use them as a soapbox.
Perhaps its time to move past the number score system. People seem to just look at that number and completely forget that an article has been written from the perspective of the person who chose that number. His review reads as a 7/10, which is his opinion. With the number system gone you'd have a bit more actual discussion even though you'll still have the folks who only come to the comments section to use them as a soapbox.
Did you bother to read the review?
All I took from it was a giant analogy about growing up in high school and going through the awkward stages- A good analogy for what an early access title is and that it can be fun with friends.
This is a $60+ fully released game from a AAA studio (and not a poor one) that is broken and unfinished.
Honestly , there was very little substance there and the bulk of it was that analogy- Unless I missed something.
And last i'll say, what actual discussion can really be gleaned from that article?
I've only recently started posting here and i'm not trying to come off as making accusations about intention and integrity towards the staff but ive played this game... This review is not much of a review but the number really stands out- I'll leave it at that.
Perhaps its time to move past the number score system. People seem to just look at that number and completely forget that an article has been written from the perspective of the person who chose that number. His review reads as a 7/10, which is his opinion. With the number system gone you'd have a bit more actual discussion even though you'll still have the folks who only come to the comments section to use them as a soapbox.
Did you bother to read the review?
All I took from it was a giant analogy about growing up in high school and going through the awkward stages- A good analogy for what an early access title is and that it can be fun with friends.
Honestly , there was very little substance there and the bulk of it was that analogy- Unless I missed something.
And last i'll say, what actual discussion can really be gleaned from that article?
I've only recently started posting here and i'm not trying to come off as making accusations about intention and integrity towards the staff but ive played this game... This review is not much of a review but the number really stands out- I'll leave it at that.
This. If there wasn't a number, this review would offer nothing substantial to comment on. Because it isn't a review in any way that actually matters.
Ethics in Journalism: How much does games journalism in general fail at? With everyone with a keyboard being able to write and accept gifts from companies, most without proper training or education with regards to reporting. This is not a shot at MMORPG.com but rather the state of most of the games journalism -- especially when you have your games journalists on twitter with personal rants and writing articles of hate against their own audience.
Good post.
The part of your quote I kept however is not unique to games journalism. This is the dark end result of universal access to blogging and YT as well as special interest conglomerates buying up whatever TV or newpapers they can get their grubby little hands on so they can further their own agendas. All of this has contributed significantly to lowering the standards of electronic, print and video journalism.
As someone who grew-up in the 60's and 70's I've lived through this radical change from a mostly honest and responsible profession that served to keep everyone more or less honest to being nothing but extensions of PR machine for the sectors they cover.
There are exceptions of course and there are some who painstakingly try to be honest but just the fact that now they are the exceptions instead of the rule pretty well tells you the whole story about the change.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
There is no such thing as journalism in main stream forms anymore. It is just opinionating to specific demographics. Tailoring messages for political, economic, and ratings purposes.
Ethics in Journalism: How much does games journalism in general fail at? With everyone with a keyboard being able to write and accept gifts from companies, most without proper training or education with regards to reporting. This is not a shot at MMORPG.com but rather the state of most of the games journalism -- especially when you have your games journalists on twitter with personal rants and writing articles of hate against their own audience.
Good post.
The part of your quote I kept however is not unique to games journalism. This is the dark end result of universal access to blogging and YT as well as special interest conglomerates buying up whatever TV or newpapers they can get their grubby little hands on so they can further their own agendas. All of this has contributed significantly to lowering the standards of electronic, print and video journalism.
As someone who grew-up in the 60's and 70's I've lived through this radical change from a mostly honest and responsible profession that served to keep everyone more or less honest to being nothing but extensions of PR machine for the sectors they cover.
There are exceptions of course and there are some who painstakingly try to be honest but just the fact that now they are the exceptions instead of the rule pretty well tells you the whole story about the change.
No the main issue, when it comes to opinion based journalism, is that people with differing opinions can simply write it off as lack of integrity, poor writing, bad comprehension of mechanics, any and all things to excoriate the writer to somehow advance their position or opinion.
Rarely do we see people just chock it up to difference of opinion. People are acting like a 7 is not only outrageous, but that this is the highest score out of any publication out there (it's not).
People don't even take a moment to understand it. They may have read it, or at least some of it, but most people probably don't even realize that the review was written for the PS4 version instead of PC. That right there changes a number of things.
When a writer can't give an honest opinion in fear that they're going to be attacked for it, it ends up demeaning the "profession" as a whole. It's how we got where we are today in journalism. Casting doubt on any reporting one doesn't agree with, make sure it's termed as "fake" or "paid for" because anything else just "can't be right". Opinion journalism is even worse as everybody with a keyboard thinks their opinion is fact, when in reality, the writers point of view is as valid as every single one of those that oppose it here.
Just sad to see that people can't just voice an opinion without attacks. Disappointing, but not surprising.
Ethics in Journalism: How much does games journalism in general fail at? With everyone with a keyboard being able to write and accept gifts from companies, most without proper training or education with regards to reporting. This is not a shot at MMORPG.com but rather the state of most of the games journalism -- especially when you have your games journalists on twitter with personal rants and writing articles of hate against their own audience.
Good post.
The part of your quote I kept however is not unique to games journalism. This is the dark end result of universal access to blogging and YT as well as special interest conglomerates buying up whatever TV or newpapers they can get their grubby little hands on so they can further their own agendas. All of this has contributed significantly to lowering the standards of electronic, print and video journalism.
As someone who grew-up in the 60's and 70's I've lived through this radical change from a mostly honest and responsible profession that served to keep everyone more or less honest to being nothing but extensions of PR machine for the sectors they cover.
There are exceptions of course and there are some who painstakingly try to be honest but just the fact that now they are the exceptions instead of the rule pretty well tells you the whole story about the change.
No the main issue, when it comes to opinion based journalism, is that people with differing opinions can simply write it off as lack of integrity, poor writing, bad comprehension of mechanics, any and all things to excoriate the writer to somehow advance their position or opinion.
Rarely do we see people just chock it up to difference of opinion. People are acting like a 7 is not only outrageous, but that this is the highest score out of any publication out there (it's not).
People don't even take a moment to understand it. They may have read it, or at least some of it, but most people probably don't even realize that the review was written for the PS4 version instead of PC. That right there changes a number of things.
When a writer can't give an honest opinion in fear that they're going to be attacked for it, it ends up demeaning the "profession" as a whole. It's how we got where we are today in journalism. Casting doubt on any reporting one doesn't agree with, make sure it's termed as "fake" or "paid for" because anything else just "can't be right". Opinion journalism is even worse as everybody with a keyboard thinks their opinion is fact, when in reality, the writers point of view is as valid as every single one of those that oppose it here.
Just sad to see that people can't just voice an opinion without attacks. Disappointing, but not surprising.
Well you're on to something a bit different here: there is just way too much opinion-based journalism in gaming and not enough investigative or fact-based reporting.
And you're overstating one of the fears: that of pissing off the general public with your reviews, and not even mentioning the biggest one: fear of pissing off the studios and losing insider access.
You have to be an idiot to write mainstream publication game reviews and not consider both unless you truly don't give a shit about either... in which case you're just writing or YTing to stroke your own ego.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Ethics in Journalism: How much does games journalism in general fail at? With everyone with a keyboard being able to write and accept gifts from companies, most without proper training or education with regards to reporting. This is not a shot at MMORPG.com but rather the state of most of the games journalism -- especially when you have your games journalists on twitter with personal rants and writing articles of hate against their own audience.
Good post.
The part of your quote I kept however is not unique to games journalism. This is the dark end result of universal access to blogging and YT as well as special interest conglomerates buying up whatever TV or newpapers they can get their grubby little hands on so they can further their own agendas. All of this has contributed significantly to lowering the standards of electronic, print and video journalism.
As someone who grew-up in the 60's and 70's I've lived through this radical change from a mostly honest and responsible profession that served to keep everyone more or less honest to being nothing but extensions of PR machine for the sectors they cover.
There are exceptions of course and there are some who painstakingly try to be honest but just the fact that now they are the exceptions instead of the rule pretty well tells you the whole story about the change.
No the main issue, when it comes to opinion based journalism, is that people with differing opinions can simply write it off as lack of integrity, poor writing, bad comprehension of mechanics, any and all things to excoriate the writer to somehow advance their position or opinion.
Rarely do we see people just chock it up to difference of opinion. People are acting like a 7 is not only outrageous, but that this is the highest score out of any publication out there (it's not).
People don't even take a moment to understand it. They may have read it, or at least some of it, but most people probably don't even realize that the review was written for the PS4 version instead of PC. That right there changes a number of things.
When a writer can't give an honest opinion in fear that they're going to be attacked for it, it ends up demeaning the "profession" as a whole. It's how we got where we are today in journalism. Casting doubt on any reporting one doesn't agree with, make sure it's termed as "fake" or "paid for" because anything else just "can't be right". Opinion journalism is even worse as everybody with a keyboard thinks their opinion is fact, when in reality, the writers point of view is as valid as every single one of those that oppose it here.
Just sad to see that people can't just voice an opinion without attacks. Disappointing, but not surprising.
Well you're on to something a bit different here: there is just way too much opinion-based journalism in gaming and not enough investigative or fact-based reporting.
And you're overstating one of the fears: that of pissing off the general public with your reviews, and not even mentioning the biggest one: fear of pissing off the studios and losing insider access.
You have to be an idiot to write mainstream publication game reviews and not consider both unless you truly don't give a shit about either... in which case you're just writing or YTing to stroke your own ego.
If that were the case, fear of pissing off the game companies, then there wouldn't ever be a bad review. I know of several bad reviews that were written on games on this site alone.
Fact based journalism is important, but fact based reviews are hard to quantify. Two games can factually have the same mechanics, but one may be substantially more fun than another. Fun being that intangible, opinionated feeling that we all strive for when we play games.
It's the essence of why fallout 76 is where it is right now. Certain bugs are experienced differently depending on versions, builds, play style, and just all over randomness, one person could have a lot of fun, and another may not be able to play nearly at all.
The manner of abuse some writers have to deal with simply because of an opinion based on their experience is pretty shameful, that's really where I was going with the whole.. "fear of the general public" comment.
I agree with the overall view of the author. Though it is a 6/10 for me, I hit the PA bug and that dropped my score from a 8/10.
The NPC's are there.... thier just dead .... Holotapes - Notes - Scribblings on the walls and the person running around putting the Moon Monkey in all the varied still life scenes ...
Has any one ever stopped to think that 'WE' and our 'Children' are the NPC's of the Fallout Franchise's future time frame ?
The key thing to take here for many people is the footnote of "Playstation" and "PR Copy". The former indicating an audience that is used to Bethesda games being Bethesda games and not having a modding community repair the various blunders such has. Or perhaps not even having some problems -- or people lacking the know-how to exploit it on the console versus the PC. One such thing being the uncapped frames "speed hack" on PC whereby if you uncapped frames or have a more powerful computer (or if you do tricks such as looking at the ground while moving), you move faster than normal (imagine this and the fact that there is PvP in the game). Which they actually allowed in the online version of Fallout 76. The latter is that they complied with standards with regards to receiving free things in keeping it out in the open.
Though when you personally know true shills -- and there are a lot of them due to the how the industry is set up -- you start to notice things with regards to other writings. Which can be attributed to lack of training in maintaining an unbias viewpoint or simply being caught up in wave that is the industry. While I specifically noted prior to quoting the articles of integrity that it wasn't aimed at MMORPG, I did catch many things within the writing in this article itself. I noted one as an example, but left things as they were. This was, of course, instantly placing a positive in an area where negatives are supposed to be to provide for a balanced viewpoint. We could go further by the way the writing was articulated; in many ways, it could be interpreted as an apology or an excuse. Comparing things that have no real connection in anyway just to form an eventual or "time will tell" positive. Basing something on potential rather than facts. Which is, in my opinion, a grave mistake as that's not even forming a strong opinion on what is, but rather what may be -- and from my own interpretation it's forgiving the "what is" portion.
It could be said that much of the backlash from Fallout 76 -- aside the near universally believed shoddy game, bugs, reused assets, low-effort developing -- is that the modding community just can fix what it usually does. That Bethesda moved from an industry leader -- where they pioneer things and lead the way -- to just another "one of those" games with allegedly low effort just to make a quick buck (Bugs were typically excused because they were leading the way, and the players fixed them anyway with a chuckle and a "Oh Bethesda" witty remark). Which, again, does have less of an impact on a community that is just used to Bethesda being Bethesda. Until you also realize the other things that's been happening, that I believe the people should know about. The alleged bait and switch with the bags that they advertised to be with the collectors edition (there was actually writing saying "Actual Items Maybe Be different" with that advertisement... like they knew their hand was in the cookie jar before hand). The shutting down of refunds to the point where the before-mentioned and this has made a law firm specializing in deceptive practices is now investigating them. The reports that people said they got emails saying they would get their refunds, only to get a follow up saying it wasn't possible because they already downloaded the game (in a game, mind you, where there is no physical copies -- the boxes even come with a digital code). With the same person saying their access to the game was taken away. That's right, they said they couldn't do it because he downloaded the game (a game that has live service and log it), and his install and login didn't work because they revoked it during the refund process that was cancelled half way through. The recent Bethesda customer support saying it was too expensive to give people what they paid for, with them then coming back and stating the customer service representative that said that doesn't work for them any longer and was just a seasonal.
There's so much more to this that could drive the people in a frenzy. But they're not one ones that claim they're professionals or journalist or anything. And the game just by itself has enough documented bugs and errors and so on that it could be reliably charge backed and even taken to court with a feasible chance at victory.
"When a writer can't give an honest opinion in fear that they're going to
be attacked for it, it ends up demeaning the "profession" as a whole.
It's how we got where we are today in journalism. Casting doubt on any
reporting one doesn't agree with, make sure it's termed as "fake" or
"paid for" because anything else just "can't be right". Opinion
journalism is even worse as everybody with a keyboard thinks their
opinion is fact, when in reality, the writers point of view is as valid
as every single one of those that oppose it here."
Except that's just saying that only the press can have freedom of speech. Not to mention that the very articles of ethics demands we vigorously defend the integrity of such things. If there is evidence of foul play -- and there is ample evidence in such with the industry as a whole -- then it is expected that doubt is cast. That words are given. I'd say the reason we are where we are is because this wasn't done enough, not that it was done too much. Not enough was done to make note of corruption in general. Not enough was done to ensure the sanctity of journalism -- and to provide for journalists who stood for values. And now it's Billion Dollar companies, their higher ups, the pressure of stock value and investors versus the consumer.
I recall quite a few "games journalists" saying near psychotic things and calling the "red shirt" guy -- who spent thousands to go to a place he was obviously a fan of at Blizzcon -- names and saying he was rude and should shut his mouth. The irony is that he is what journalists used to be. Hard hitting, asking question that seem to be rude, especially in their home turf. Is that wrong? Well, the President of the United States would seem to agree with the journalists. He has made it clear to many, in my opinion, that he does not like rude questions in the White House or in general.
It is a shame that we got to a point where a legitimate journalist may be caught in the wave of vengeance that had been held back for so long. All I can speak of is knowing how to spot an untrained writing and a shill from extensively knowing such. And being a shill doesn't just mean being paid off with money, but also being susceptible to billion dollar tactics and the expanse of the hype industry. Even the whole "X-box ambassador" deal and "Influencers" (the ones that specific games bring in and give benefits for and exposure -- such as Bless) and the like are created to make people feel special and defend them.
Though with regards to this, we can look at the numbers rather than an "us versus them" or "opinion versus opinion". It's overwhelming what the thought is by the masses. And it could be said to be arrogant to say one's solemn voice overrides it.
Post edited by Yaevindusk on
Due to frequent travel in my youth, English isn't something I consider my primary language (and thus I obtained quirky ways of writing). German and French were always easier for me despite my family being U.S. citizens for over a century. Spanish I learned as a requirement in school, Japanese and Korean I acquired for my youthful desire of anime and gaming (and also work now). I only debate in English to help me work with it (and limit things). In addition, I'm not smart enough to remain fluent in everything and typically need exposure to get in the groove of things again if I haven't heard it in a while. If you understand Mandarin, I know a little, but it has actually been a challenge and could use some help.
Also, I thoroughly enjoy debates and have accounts on over a dozen sites for this. If you wish to engage in such, please put effort in a post and provide sources -- I will then do the same with what I already wrote (if I didn't) as well as with my responses to your own. Expanding my information on a subject makes my stance either change or strengthen the next time I speak of it or write a thesis. Allow me to thank you sincerely for your time.
7 is probably the absolute maximum to rate this game if you are a fanatic fanboy how story/quests are done in F76, totally ignore PvP, ignore all bugs, bad design concepts and missing state of the art features like FoV and you are so rich that you don't even look at the price tag for games at all because 60$ for F76 is a bad joke.
If you don't fall into this small group you will most likely rate F76 lower.
7? The only good experience I had with 76 was how easy it was to cancel my pre-order through Amazon. There is a reason the overwhelming majority of reviews are negative. Giving this dumpster fire a 7 may encourage some people to spend their hard earned money on a broken and dated game. Maybe Bethesda will make this game playable after another year or so of work. Maybe it will be worth looking at in the future. 7? I am a Bethesda fan and I even lover Fallout 4. 76 is maybe a 2. Fix the constant server disconnects for a 3. Add NPCs, fix the glitching, fix the lack of AI, make PvP servers for actual PvP then maybe a 5.
Reviews should not be tailored to your audience at all. They should be the reviewer's honest opinion. If reviews on this site tried to match the readers opinions most "reviews" on this site would simply be hating on every damn game! Or wildly loving them right up until launch day, then hating on them. .
I believe those are called opinion pieces and not reviews. You generally find opinion pieces in blogs or they have "opinion in the title. Very seldom do I see a true review now days when it comes to gaming. Nothing wrong with doing opinion pieces, but call it what it is and don't try to disguise for something it isn't.
I'm not an IT Specialist, Game Developer, or Clairvoyant in real life, but like others on here, I play one on the internet.
Also saw a few RDII coomets here, and the streams were overall mush worse. Not in terms of bugginess but in terms of the expected cash grab and monetization of each and every little thing. Literally locking you into horse menu and forcing you to go through the whole menu of things you can do (and pay for) before you can even exit the menu. Not forcing you to buy anything but making sure you were aware of the prices of things. But we all knew what it would be, shark cards all over again. But with RDRII its gold bars or whatever. So IMO inability to play because of forced store interface is nearly as bad as not being able to play because of a bug or a crash. But That game will die off as fast or faster than GTA V did on 'official' servers which is obviously all consoles can offer. So in terms of overall potential FO76 has a much brighter (possible) future. BUt once (if) RDRII comes out on PC and modders get a hold of it and private servers come out it will be pretty epic. And that is also where that game will have a better possible future than FO76. But really theyre two different games. And both could be epic in their own way. But both as is are pretty shitty.
Its off topic but so far RDR2 Online is going to be a massive disappointment and blatant cash grab. Initial (and totally scientific lol) calculations seem to show me that its going to take dozens of hours of grinding to do something as simple as customize your weapons look- Which is totally cosmetic. I'm not even going to touch the clear P2W direction the game is seems geared towards.
However, theres a major distinction here as well. I purchased both games and RDR2 had one of best single player experiences of the last decade- It oozed with love and care and detail and polish- It was just an outstanding experience. $70 well spent- The online portion is just a free added bonus and if it sucks or is totally p2w it does not undermine my purchase at all- If it happens to be great (doubtful at this point from what ive seen) thats all just icing on an already delicious cake.
FO76 was an early access asset flip which we were lied to about (16 times the detail of FO4!!! Biggest game we've ever made! etc..etc..) and theres no saving grace. As a $20 early access title I would been fine with this. As a $60 released game from bethesda? No way... I was ripped off and so was anyone else who bought this garbage.
It might be good some day (but I doubt it highly) but right now its 5/10 at best... And thats pushing it.
The point of a Multi player game is replayability. Thats why people buy them. Its not like a single player game (no matter how many hours they have) can compete with an online game. GTA V proofs that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Two versions of the same game. Although GTA V also proofs out the necessity for 'hybrid' servers. Because most if not all of these smaller server type games all benefit from modded content and hybrid rules. The 'official' servers are mostly ghost towns or places where sociopaths who can exploit the official system play.
Thats why BOTH things games are severely lacking right now. And also why I said FO 76 on that aspect has a better chance to be a more long term "success'.
Also I suspect a lot of people bought RDRII mostly for the multiplayer (since they are more than familiar with GTA V and how well its held up) But i think most of these people also forgot that the official servers suck and that most of what theyre playing on are modded/customized private servers. If they jumped on the official GTA V servers for a little bit then what theyre seeing in RDRII probably wouldnt be so shocking as it would remind them of how Rockstar operates.
But the bigger distinction here is everyone saw what FO 76 was (in its current form). They saw it plain as day. RDRII online was perhaps predictable but no one saw it first hand like they did FO 76.
So again we can do that dance of what each one is or isnt. For people who bought RDRII definitely got a great single player experience. But if they bought it for the multiplayer then I am sure theyre feeling ripped off. FO 76 was EASILY 'researched'. They had free preview basically. Not everyone could play so it wasnt technically an open beta, but it was widespread enough you shouldnt have missed the warning signs.
Of course that doesnt speak to why this guy gave it a 7 out of 10. Which I suppose is the main topic, but it can certainly be used as an argument for people who want to trash the game or say they were disappointed or ripped off by it. The best way to even try and spin a 7 star review would be on potential to be good. As-is its probably a 5 (from watching streams and not playing it yet). But when it works it works well and it could be an 8 or a 9. But its obviously not close to there yet. So wanting to reward them for effort or future possibilities is a stretch. But then again the review wasnt even a review but some babbling nonsense that didnt have a lot to do with the game in the first place. Thats why I felt it was OK to venture off topic since the OP wasnt even on topic (as a 'pure' review.
Again, it's a strange decision to write a review for a console version on a site dedicated to a PC-dominsted genre. The majority of players here own a PC and are primarily concerned with PC gaming. I question the decision to write a review based on a copy for another platform. Again: consider your audience.
I don't play games on my PS4. Many of the community members here may not even own a PS4, preferring an Xbox. This review isn't useful to us, because it isn't accurate to the experience we could expect on the most likely platform we'll play it on.
It goes back to this: are reviews a personal blog, or an informational piece for readers? If the former, then I would recommend labeling it more accurately (it's billed as representing's the site's official review). If it's the latter, it's not well-written for its purpose imo.
Again, it's a strange decision to write a review for a console version on a site dedicated to a PC-dominsted genre. The majority of players here own a PC and are primarily concerned with PC gaming. I question the decision to write a review based on a copy for another platform. Again: consider your audience.
Agree. Consider the fact that, for example, the UI has been designed for Console, and while it might be fine for that platform, it is utterly crap for PC. And that's just one example.
As someone who has been playing predominantly MMO's since UO, I've spent more hours in Fallout 76 than any other Fallout title. Approximately 50 hours to get to level 25. Most I've spent in any of the others would be 5-10 hours. For this reason alone I need to agree with the 7.
There have been some real highlights in my solo exploration so far, but I don't want to spoil anyone else's fun by saying what they were.
The game clearly needs work though. Another review at the 6 month mark would be appropriate.
That 7 will become either a 3 or an 8 depending on what happens from here.
I enjoyed reading the piece and you make some good points. I'm not willing to throw out the baby with the bath water either but would give this maybe a 5.
While there are a variety of irritating bugs and stability issues, weight management is my number one detractor. Even if the game is functioning well and I have found something interesting to explore, I'll get that constant reminder that my inventory is full again and it completely changes the experience.
Stop off over here and scrap
Stop off over there and drop off
Take a minute to bulk items
Drop those missiles
Travel back to camp and mess around with everything
It gets old fast and I have curtailed my play time because of it; e.g. Hey it would be fun to explore _____ Oh but wait, I logged out with a full inventory..... Nah, pass.
Why not just ignore everything and not pick anything up? Well, at this point I'm on a constant hunt for screws and aluminum for one. I suppose I could just drop my armor and go unarmed but guess that would be less than enjoyable.
It is a shame that we got to a point where a legitimate journalist may be caught in the wave of vengeance that had been held back for so long. All I can speak of is knowing how to spot an untrained writing and a shill from extensively knowing such. And being a shill doesn't just mean being paid off with money, but also being susceptible to billion dollar tactics and the expanse of the hype industry. Even the whole "X-box ambassador" deal and "Influencers" (the ones that specific games bring in and give benefits for and exposure -- such as Bless) and the like are created to make people feel special and defend them.
Though with regards to this, we can look at the numbers rather than an "us versus them" or "opinion versus opinion". It's overwhelming what the thought is by the masses. And it could be said to be arrogant to say one's solemn voice overrides it.
Maybe what you think you see, "Knowing how to spot a shill" is just what you want to see and not necessarily what is happening.
If this review is simply an honest opinion, it verily negates every point of "spotting a shill" and your rules of the way the article was laid out was simply a journalistic choice. Ask yourself a few questions here:
1) Do you know the author? Do you know his past work, would his history gear more towards a favorable honest review or is it largely inconsistent?
2) Is this an abnormally out of context review? What do other game reviews look like? Are 6's and 7's uncommon? Based on Metacritic, they are NOT. The AVERAGE is a 5, which means enough scores over 7 and enough under 5 were given for the weighted average to be at a 5.
And as for Bless, the review here for Bless was critical, but people STILL complained about it. It's completely fine to have differing opinions on scores, but attacking the people that give the scores over a difference of opinion is seriously childish.
Many of us know whether or not we're going to buy a game regardless of a number written from someone else. Most of the people responding negatively here are doing so because the score doesn't reaffirm their opinion, which is largely why they even read the article, not because they wanted to know if they should play it but rather, will it give them extra fodder to revel in since they likely don't have anything to play at the moment. It's just more fun for them to attack those that don't agree.
It is a shame that we got to a point where a legitimate journalist may be caught in the wave of vengeance that had been held back for so long. All I can speak of is knowing how to spot an untrained writing and a shill from extensively knowing such. And being a shill doesn't just mean being paid off with money, but also being susceptible to billion dollar tactics and the expanse of the hype industry. Even the whole "X-box ambassador" deal and "Influencers" (the ones that specific games bring in and give benefits for and exposure -- such as Bless) and the like are created to make people feel special and defend them.
Though with regards to this, we can look at the numbers rather than an "us versus them" or "opinion versus opinion". It's overwhelming what the thought is by the masses. And it could be said to be arrogant to say one's solemn voice overrides it.
Maybe what you think you see, "Knowing how to spot a shill" is just what you want to see and not necessarily what is happening.
If this review is simply an honest opinion, it verily negates every point of "spotting a shill" and your rules of the way the article was laid out was simply a journalistic choice. Ask yourself a few questions here:
1) Do you know the author? Do you know his past work, would his history gear more towards a favorable honest review or is it largely inconsistent?
2) Is this an abnormally out of context review? What do other game reviews look like? Are 6's and 7's uncommon? Based on Metacritic, they are NOT. The AVERAGE is a 5, which means enough scores over 7 and enough under 5 were given for the weighted average to be at a 5.
And as for Bless, the review here for Bless was critical, but people STILL complained about it. It's completely fine to have differing opinions on scores, but attacking the people that give the scores over a difference of opinion is seriously childish.
Many of us know whether or not we're going to buy a game regardless of a number written from someone else. Most of the people responding negatively here are doing so because the score doesn't reaffirm their opinion, which is largely why they even read the article, not because they wanted to know if they should play it but rather, will it give them extra fodder to revel in since they likely don't have anything to play at the moment. It's just more fun for them to attack those that don't agree.
7 is still the outlier, not the rule, and definitely not indicative of the average experience of critics.
Only 5 out of the 36 reviews were 7 or higher (none at 8). That's 14% of reviewers giving it such a positive review.
For context: 17 of the reviews were at 5 or lower, or 47% of critical reviews.
I think it's safe to say the 7s aren't even indicative of the normal critic's experience, much less the population at large.
EDIT- and the PS4 version per Metacritic had even less critics going up to or beyond 7, with one at 83, one at 69 (out of another 36 reviews)... The rest being one whole (or 10, depending upon if you are talking Meta's 100-point scale or converting it to 10-point scale) point or more lower than 7/10.
Again, it's a strange decision to write a review for a console version on a site dedicated to a PC-dominsted genre. The majority of players here own a PC and are primarily concerned with PC gaming. I question the decision to write a review based on a copy for another platform. Again: consider your audience.
Agree. Consider the fact that, for example, the UI has been designed for Console, and while it might be fine for that platform, it is utterly crap for PC. And that's just one example.
Well to be fair, MMOs aren't only on PC anymore. The majority here probably won't play the game on PS4, but when the game was releasing, I opted for the PS4 version simply because I expected issues and knew the console versions would likely be my best shot at a stable release.
Had the reviewer been on PC... well.. ha, I expect the score would be in the 4-5 range. The highest console scores were in the 80's (8's) whereas the highest scores for PC were in the 7's.. that's a whole point difference at least. But honestly, had the game been given a 6 instead of a 7, I doubt it would quell the response much.
But that in mind, there are MMOs *just* for console. I know many here might be concerned strictly with PC gaming, but ... maybe this is a good indicator PC isn't the best choice of platform.. every time.
Again, it's a strange decision to write a review for a console version on a site dedicated to a PC-dominsted genre. The majority of players here own a PC and are primarily concerned with PC gaming. I question the decision to write a review based on a copy for another platform. Again: consider your audience.
Agree. Consider the fact that, for example, the UI has been designed for Console, and while it might be fine for that platform, it is utterly crap for PC. And that's just one example.
Well to be fair, MMOs aren't only on PC anymore. The majority here probably won't play the game on PS4, but when the game was releasing, I opted for the PS4 version simply because I expected issues and knew the console versions would likely be my best shot at a stable release.
Had the reviewer been on PC... well.. ha, I expect the score would be in the 4-5 range. The highest console scores were in the 80's (8's) whereas the highest scores for PC were in the 7's.. that's a whole point difference at least. But honestly, had the game been given a 6 instead of a 7, I doubt it would quell the response much.
But that in mind, there are MMOs *just* for console. I know many here might be concerned strictly with PC gaming, but ... maybe this is a good indicator PC isn't the best choice of platform.. every time.
The issue is, again, reviewing for a platform like PS4 when you know the majority of your readership comes here for PC gaming is just, well.. Poor choices.
It would be different if the franchise was, in general, console focused and just ported to PC after the fact. That's not true for Fallout.
Comments
Perhaps its time to move past the number score system. People seem to just look at that number and completely forget that an article has been written from the perspective of the person who chose that number. His review reads as a 7/10, which is his opinion. With the number system gone you'd have a bit more actual discussion even though you'll still have the folks who only come to the comments section to use them as a soapbox.
All I took from it was a giant analogy about growing up in high school and going through the awkward stages- A good analogy for what an early access title is and that it can be fun with friends.
This is a $60+ fully released game from a AAA studio (and not a poor one) that is broken and unfinished.
Honestly , there was very little substance there and the bulk of it was that analogy- Unless I missed something.
And last i'll say, what actual discussion can really be gleaned from that article?
I've only recently started posting here and i'm not trying to come off as making accusations about intention and integrity towards the staff but ive played this game... This review is not much of a review but the number really stands out- I'll leave it at that.
The part of your quote I kept however is not unique to games journalism. This is the dark end result of universal access to blogging and YT as well as special interest conglomerates buying up whatever TV or newpapers they can get their grubby little hands on so they can further their own agendas. All of this has contributed significantly to lowering the standards of electronic, print and video journalism.
As someone who grew-up in the 60's and 70's I've lived through this radical change from a mostly honest and responsible profession that served to keep everyone more or less honest to being nothing but extensions of PR machine for the sectors they cover.
There are exceptions of course and there are some who painstakingly try to be honest but just the fact that now they are the exceptions instead of the rule pretty well tells you the whole story about the change.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Rarely do we see people just chock it up to difference of opinion. People are acting like a 7 is not only outrageous, but that this is the highest score out of any publication out there (it's not).
People don't even take a moment to understand it. They may have read it, or at least some of it, but most people probably don't even realize that the review was written for the PS4 version instead of PC. That right there changes a number of things.
When a writer can't give an honest opinion in fear that they're going to be attacked for it, it ends up demeaning the "profession" as a whole. It's how we got where we are today in journalism. Casting doubt on any reporting one doesn't agree with, make sure it's termed as "fake" or "paid for" because anything else just "can't be right". Opinion journalism is even worse as everybody with a keyboard thinks their opinion is fact, when in reality, the writers point of view is as valid as every single one of those that oppose it here.
Just sad to see that people can't just voice an opinion without attacks. Disappointing, but not surprising.
And you're overstating one of the fears: that of pissing off the general public with your reviews, and not even mentioning the biggest one: fear of pissing off the studios and losing insider access.
You have to be an idiot to write mainstream publication game reviews and not consider both unless you truly don't give a shit about either... in which case you're just writing or YTing to stroke your own ego.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Fact based journalism is important, but fact based reviews are hard to quantify. Two games can factually have the same mechanics, but one may be substantially more fun than another. Fun being that intangible, opinionated feeling that we all strive for when we play games.
It's the essence of why fallout 76 is where it is right now. Certain bugs are experienced differently depending on versions, builds, play style, and just all over randomness, one person could have a lot of fun, and another may not be able to play nearly at all.
The manner of abuse some writers have to deal with simply because of an opinion based on their experience is pretty shameful, that's really where I was going with the whole.. "fear of the general public" comment.
The NPC's are there.... thier just dead
Has any one ever stopped to think that 'WE' and our 'Children' are the NPC's of the Fallout Franchise's future time frame ?
If you don't fall into this small group you will most likely rate F76 lower.
I'm not an IT Specialist, Game Developer, or Clairvoyant in real life, but like others on here, I play one on the internet.
I believe those are called opinion pieces and not reviews. You generally find opinion pieces in blogs or they have "opinion in the title. Very seldom do I see a true review now days when it comes to gaming. Nothing wrong with doing opinion pieces, but call it what it is and don't try to disguise for something it isn't.
I'm not an IT Specialist, Game Developer, or Clairvoyant in real life, but like others on here, I play one on the internet.
Thats why BOTH things games are severely lacking right now. And also why I said FO 76 on that aspect has a better chance to be a more long term "success'.
Also I suspect a lot of people bought RDRII mostly for the multiplayer (since they are more than familiar with GTA V and how well its held up) But i think most of these people also forgot that the official servers suck and that most of what theyre playing on are modded/customized private servers. If they jumped on the official GTA V servers for a little bit then what theyre seeing in RDRII probably wouldnt be so shocking as it would remind them of how Rockstar operates.
But the bigger distinction here is everyone saw what FO 76 was (in its current form). They saw it plain as day. RDRII online was perhaps predictable but no one saw it first hand like they did FO 76.
So again we can do that dance of what each one is or isnt. For people who bought RDRII definitely got a great single player experience. But if they bought it for the multiplayer then I am sure theyre feeling ripped off. FO 76 was EASILY 'researched'. They had free preview basically. Not everyone could play so it wasnt technically an open beta, but it was widespread enough you shouldnt have missed the warning signs.
Of course that doesnt speak to why this guy gave it a 7 out of 10. Which I suppose is the main topic, but it can certainly be used as an argument for people who want to trash the game or say they were disappointed or ripped off by it. The best way to even try and spin a 7 star review would be on potential to be good. As-is its probably a 5 (from watching streams and not playing it yet). But when it works it works well and it could be an 8 or a 9. But its obviously not close to there yet.
So wanting to reward them for effort or future possibilities is a stretch. But then again the review wasnt even a review but some babbling nonsense that didnt have a lot to do with the game in the first place. Thats why I felt it was OK to venture off topic since the OP wasnt even on topic (as a 'pure' review.
I don't play games on my PS4. Many of the community members here may not even own a PS4, preferring an Xbox. This review isn't useful to us, because it isn't accurate to the experience we could expect on the most likely platform we'll play it on.
It goes back to this: are reviews a personal blog, or an informational piece for readers? If the former, then I would recommend labeling it more accurately (it's billed as representing's the site's official review). If it's the latter, it's not well-written for its purpose imo.
Consider the fact that, for example, the UI has been designed for Console, and while it might be fine for that platform, it is utterly crap for PC.
And that's just one example.
There have been some real highlights in my solo exploration so far, but I don't want to spoil anyone else's fun by saying what they were.
The game clearly needs work though. Another review at the 6 month mark would be appropriate.
That 7 will become either a 3 or an 8 depending on what happens from here.
angryjoe review is good to watch.
While there are a variety of irritating bugs and stability issues, weight management is my number one detractor. Even if the game is functioning well and I have found something interesting to explore, I'll get that constant reminder that my inventory is full again and it completely changes the experience.
Stop off over here and scrap
Stop off over there and drop off
Take a minute to bulk items
Drop those missiles
Travel back to camp and mess around with everything
It gets old fast and I have curtailed my play time because of it; e.g. Hey it would be fun to explore _____ Oh but wait, I logged out with a full inventory..... Nah, pass.
Why not just ignore everything and not pick anything up? Well, at this point I'm on a constant hunt for screws and aluminum for one. I suppose I could just drop my armor and go unarmed but guess that would be less than enjoyable.
Seaspite
Playing ESO on my X-Box
If this review is simply an honest opinion, it verily negates every point of "spotting a shill" and your rules of the way the article was laid out was simply a journalistic choice. Ask yourself a few questions here:
1) Do you know the author?
Do you know his past work, would his history gear more towards a favorable honest review or is it largely inconsistent?
2) Is this an abnormally out of context review?
What do other game reviews look like? Are 6's and 7's uncommon? Based on Metacritic, they are NOT. The AVERAGE is a 5, which means enough scores over 7 and enough under 5 were given for the weighted average to be at a 5.
And as for Bless, the review here for Bless was critical, but people STILL complained about it. It's completely fine to have differing opinions on scores, but attacking the people that give the scores over a difference of opinion is seriously childish.
Many of us know whether or not we're going to buy a game regardless of a number written from someone else. Most of the people responding negatively here are doing so because the score doesn't reaffirm their opinion, which is largely why they even read the article, not because they wanted to know if they should play it but rather, will it give them extra fodder to revel in since they likely don't have anything to play at the moment. It's just more fun for them to attack those that don't agree.
Only 5 out of the 36 reviews were 7 or higher (none at 8). That's 14% of reviewers giving it such a positive review.
For context: 17 of the reviews were at 5 or lower, or 47% of critical reviews.
I think it's safe to say the 7s aren't even indicative of the normal critic's experience, much less the population at large.
EDIT- and the PS4 version per Metacritic had even less critics going up to or beyond 7, with one at 83, one at 69 (out of another 36 reviews)... The rest being one whole (or 10, depending upon if you are talking Meta's 100-point scale or converting it to 10-point scale) point or more lower than 7/10.
Had the reviewer been on PC... well.. ha, I expect the score would be in the 4-5 range. The highest console scores were in the 80's (8's) whereas the highest scores for PC were in the 7's.. that's a whole point difference at least. But honestly, had the game been given a 6 instead of a 7, I doubt it would quell the response much.
But that in mind, there are MMOs *just* for console. I know many here might be concerned strictly with PC gaming, but ... maybe this is a good indicator PC isn't the best choice of platform.. every time.
It would be different if the franchise was, in general, console focused and just ported to PC after the fact. That's not true for Fallout.